Annihilation of positron and eletron particles

Dear Max Keon:

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...
....
Do you ever ask yourself why the proton charge is
*exactly* that of a positron, and the *exact*
opposite of the electron charge?

Being the exact opposite of the electron's charge is a
requirement of symmetry. As to the rest, I believe the jury is
still out, but a single quark has been observed. So your
assertion that there is an e+ stuck inside a proton is out the
wndow.

David A. Smith

On May 12, 9:40*pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

Being the exact opposite of the electron's charge is a
requirement of symmetry. *As to the rest, I believe the jury is
still out, but a single quark has been observed. *So your
assertion that there is an e+ stuck inside a proton is out the
wndow.

David A. Smith

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For what it's worth, to my knowledge, no quark has ever been directly
observed.

Scattering results are *interpreted* as involving quarks inside
hadrons.

"Observations" of quarks, I believe, are always indirect. For example,
from the decay products of some event one infers that a no-longer-
existent quark was involved.

To my knowledge, all quark "observations" are model-dependent
*inferences*, not direct observations of the putative quarks
themselves.

If there are direct observational results that I am not aware of, I
would like to hear about them.

RLO

On 13 Mag, 05:55, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On May 12, 9:40*pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:



Being the exact opposite of the electron's charge is a
requirement of symmetry. *As to the rest, I believe the jury is
still out, but a single quark has been observed. *So your
assertion that there is an e+ stuck inside a proton is out the
wndow.

David A. Smith

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*----------------

For what it's worth, to my knowledge, no quark has ever been directly
observed.

Scattering results are *interpreted* as involving quarks inside
hadrons.

"Observations" of quarks, I believe, are always indirect. For example,
from the decay products of some event one infers that a no-longer-
existent quark was involved.

To my knowledge, all quark "observations" are model-dependent
*inferences*, not direct observations of the putative quarks
themselves.

If there are direct observational results that I am not aware of, I
would like to hear about them.

RLO

Physics's languange has a requirement that mathematic hasn't.
While math has its meanings in concepts in themselves, Physics
must have its denotates in external world. But physical entities
as electron and elementar particles are possibly simply concept as
concepts
in themselves without a reference to reality.
So it is not strange that physics is no longer predictive.

see for example: "bosenova" as unexpected result from Einstein-Bose
predictive model.

Thanks

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in message
...
....
For what it's worth, to my knowledge, no quark has
ever been directly observed.

Scattering results are *interpreted* as involving
quarks inside hadrons.

"Observations" of quarks, I believe, are always indirect.

.... as are most observations of quantum particles, right?

For example, from the decay products of some
event one infers that a no-longer-existent quark was
involved.

To my knowledge, all quark "observations" are
model-dependent *inferences*, not direct observations
of the putative quarks themselves.

If there are direct observational results that I am not
aware of, I would like to hear about them.

Don't know if this satisfies, but:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0885
.... generating a size and more.

David A. Smith

On May 13, 9:09*am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

If there are direct observatios of quarks that I am not
aware of, I would like to hear about them.

Don't know if this satisfies, but:http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0885
... generating a size and more.

David A. Smith
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This paper is virtually incomprehensible to one who has not spent
decades studying the technological jargon and conceptual/physical
modelling involved.

But I feel fairly sure that what is happening is something like the
following [because when the hermetic physics is translated into
something comprehensible for the readers of Nature, this is the way
the story is told].

Two protons collide at very high velocity. A "firebal" results, and
this mess quickly decays into ever more stable and recognizable
particles. There are usually two or more formation/decay of X events
before one gets "normal" particles. The first, and possbily more, of
the X events occur so fast that they are actually unobservable. From
the observable properties of the second or third decay event, which
can be measured, the boffins infer that the first decay event involved
a "quark". But, of course, no "quark" is ever actually observed. The
whole first X event is unobservable! Its reality and characteristics
are purely inferred from subsequent observable decay events.

Subatomic physics involves a "tower" of assumptions because of these
and other unavoidable observability problems. It is possible that
particle physicists have things basicaly sorted out correctly. But it
is also possible that major portions of the whole edifice are in the
"house of cards" category. The LHC results might give us insight into
which of these scenarios is correct.

One thing is known right now. The Vacuum Energy Density predicted by
particle physicists and the VED DETERMINED OBSERVATIONALLY by
cosmologists differ by 10^120. Yup, that's a 1 followed by 120 zeros.
Something is very rotten somewhere and physicists know it. They just
do not know what to do about it. I have previously offered a sensible
and natural approach to solving the Vacuum Energy Density crisis [if
anybody gives a fig]: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.3381.pdf
..

RLO
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw

well i find the gap quite confusing.
I am not sure there is a gap where there should be.
i refer to the gap between science and hollywood.
Science looked up and in a sky that eternally turned into more stars
the further they looked suddenly there were these black gaps or
spaces. No one can imagine why any spot in all geometric spherical
measured space, might have a direct line from here to the outer edge
of the universe where no stars are so that it would appear totally
dark. Instead someone decides to call them a HOLE and instead of being
a visual hole, then someone stupid actually decide huh a hole, you
mean a hole from all directions? like a black star sucking energy....
this is all imagination, because if the dark hole is closer than the
edge of universe it would mean there are stars behind it but it sucks
up light not letting it pass thru, or it is dark matter like a cloud.
The imaginations go everywhere, Where is the reality. So hollywood
then makes the holes or singularities as funnels and tunnels and next
thing you know we have our most noteworthy of planetariums all showing
tunnels and funnels that could jump space to other places or into
other times. It is all bull**** to ignore the present current
realities closer to life's requirements or threats of disaster to us.

Star Trek and Star Wars and television had the imagination of what
these holes are before science did, and science therefore is all
drowned by this crap the way our politics is controlled by people who
think Jerusalem and temple is coming back according to their own
visions of interpretation too. Reality of jets and airplanes were not
created by failed imaginations but by those that were true to reality.
I find it absurd to imagine a hole in space that Disney once perceived
as crushing all matter, is now embraced by you people as time tunnels
and distant glory holes to shoot thru to the awesome other side. How
is a funnel or tunnel approached if it comes from a back side not from
the other world but within our world. Or what if youre 90 degrees not
at its mouth but at its side walls.... where do these side walls go
to. Again much of the new science imagined as true might as well be
the great big hand thats holding the enterprise still. It is the
imaginations of children not any Einsteins.


Because of this i dont see where you have room to talk about gamma and
protons and positrons and electrons.
Someone needs to sort out there membership, and then still appoint
someone educational over the retards
before they establish their own little group of pseudo science.
True Creationist here...
seeing the Christian liars as guilty as the atheist scientists.
ELIJAH

On May 13, 7:57*pm, Elijahovah wrote:
well i find the gap quite confusing.
I am not sure there is a gap where there should be.
i refer to the gap between science and hollywood.
Science looked up and in a sky that eternally turned into more stars
the further they looked suddenly there were these black gaps or
spaces. No one can imagine why any spot in all geometric spherical
measured space, might have a direct line from here to the outer edge
of the universe where no stars are so that it would appear totally
dark. Instead someone decides to call them a HOLE and instead of being
a visual hole, then someone stupid actually decide huh a hole, you
mean a hole from all directions? *like a black star sucking energy....
this is all imagination, because if the dark hole is closer than the
edge of universe it would mean there are stars behind it but it sucks
up light not letting it pass thru, or it is dark matter like a cloud.
The imaginations go everywhere, Where is the reality. So hollywood
then makes the holes or singularities as funnels and tunnels and next
thing you know we have our most noteworthy of planetariums all showing
tunnels and funnels that could jump space to other places or into
other times. It is all bull**** to ignore the present current
realities closer to life's requirements or threats of disaster to us.

Star Trek and Star Wars and television had the imagination of what
these holes are before science did, and science therefore is all
drowned by this crap the way our politics is controlled by people who
think Jerusalem and temple is coming back according to their own
visions of interpretation too. Reality of jets and airplanes were not
created by failed imaginations but by those that were true to reality.
I find it absurd to imagine a hole in space that Disney once perceived
as crushing all matter, is now embraced by you people as time tunnels
and distant glory holes to shoot thru to the awesome other side. How
is a funnel or tunnel approached if it comes from a back side not from
the other world but within our world. Or what if youre 90 degrees not
at its mouth but at its side walls.... where do these side walls go
to. Again much of the new science imagined as true might as well be
the great big hand thats holding the enterprise still. It is the
imaginations of children not any Einsteins.

Because of this i dont see where you have room to talk about gamma and
protons and positrons and electrons.
Someone needs to sort out there membership, and then still appoint
someone educational over the retards
before they establish their own little group of pseudo science.
True Creationist here...
seeing the Christian liars as guilty as the atheist scientists.
ELIJAH

you are like geese who feel beautiful overpay

On Sun, 10 May 2009 15:20:00 +1000, "Max Keon"
wrote:


dlzc wrote:
Dear Skeu:
Skeu wrote:
Annihilation of positron and electron is a clear example
of the deep distance between empiric evidence and the
theory about those evidence.

Actually no. Such interactions are well understood and expected.

Anti-matter is by definition capable of real distruction

Funny, in an anti-matter Universe, they'd be saying the same
thing about *you*!

if it would be combined with matter. So how is it
possible from this combination the creation of something
as powerful as the Gamma ray.

Because it is symmetric. A powerful gamma ray can spawn the
creation of matter-antimatter pairs. Do a search for "pair
creation".

Many theories are based on idiotic assumptions that are falsified
immediately by the shear stupidity of the assumptions. Isn't it
blatantly obvious that a gamma ray has no mechanism with which
to make an electron or positron? How can it possibly know what
an electron or positron is? Does it carry some kind of code built
into the frequency that can be physically extracted in stages as
the pair slowly become aware of their existence? How can a dumb
ray be so amazingly clever? And why only electrons and positrons?
Why not the opposite sides of my jam sandwich? The gamma ray
would need to carry some kind of jam sandwich gene for that to
happen, of course.

And why does the creation process stop when the charge on each
has reached the required value even if the ray carries much more
energy than the combined value of the two? I can postulate you
a reason why that is so of course. The creation process is
entirely controlled by the emerging electron and positron as they
become self aware because they are, without doubt, fundamental
forces of nature and the parameters for their development are
set by the laws of nature. They will always end up being exactly
the same as any other electron or positron in the universe. But
I wouldn't be game to tell anyone that because I know I would be
laughed off the planet, even if I had a huge pile of math to
back it up.
The matter of gamma rays 'creating' an electron pair isanswered in the
Permitivity paper on my website
http://www.dualspace.net

In order to justify eps0 in charge-free space, I was forced to
discover pairspace in which the ep pair reside in cubes 3.514e-14m or
alpha x 2 Compton WL's.

A gamma ray is shown to require a voltage gradient of 2.886e19 V/m to
extrude the pair. If you extrude the pair, it's called pair
production. If you can find a way to extrude just the electron, it's
called creation and you would be called a creator.
-----

Max Keon

John Polasek

On May 13, 1:31*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On May 13, 9:09*am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

If there are direct observatios of quarks that I am not
aware of, I would like to hear about them.

Don't know if this satisfies, but:http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0885
... generating a size and more.

David A. Smith

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*----------------------------

This paper is virtually incomprehensible to one who has not spent
decades studying the technological jargon and conceptual/physical
modelling involved.

But I feel fairly sure that what is happening is something like the
following [because when the hermetic physics is translated into
something comprehensible for the readers of Nature, this is the way
the story is told].

Two protons collide at very high velocity. A "firebal" results, and
this mess quickly decays into ever more stable and recognizable
particles. There are usually two or more formation/decay of X events
before one gets "normal" particles. The first, and possbily more, of
the X events occur so fast that they are actually unobservable. From
the observable properties of the second or third decay event, which
can be measured, the boffins infer that the first decay event involved
a "quark". But, of course, no "quark" is ever actually observed. The
whole first X event is unobservable! Its reality and characteristics
are purely inferred from subsequent observable decay events.

Subatomic physics involves a "tower" of assumptions because of these
and other unavoidable observability problems. It is possible that
particle physicists have things basicaly sorted out correctly. But it
is also possible that major portions of the whole edifice are in the
"house of cards" category. The LHC results might give us insight into
which of these scenarios is correct.

One thing is known right now. The Vacuum Energy Density predicted by
particle physicists and the VED DETERMINED OBSERVATIONALLY by
cosmologists differ by 10^120. Yup, that's a 1 followed by 120 zeros.
Something is very rotten somewhere and physicists know it. *They just
do not know what to do about it. I have previously offered a sensible
and natural approach to solving the Vacuum Energy Density crisis [if
anybody gives a fig]: *http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.3381..pdf
.

RLO
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Am I wrong about the above? Do we have any direct observational
evidence for quarks? Or is it all inference?

I am willing to be persuaded by empirical evidence, but is there any
in this matter?

Rob

Dear Robert L. Oldershaw:

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in message
...
....
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0885
....
Do we have any
direct observational evidence for quarks? Or is
it all inference?

I am willing to be persuaded by empirical evidence,
but is there any in this matter?

Dude, you have what I can find. It is presented by others as
"direct observational proof", providing meausreable quantities.

But as with any measurement, they are *all* inferences,
especially for something much smaller than a tall cold brew. So
I suggest you have one of those, and wait until someone else
verifies the result before you "get persuaded".

In the meantime, as I have said, it *appears* they have observed
a quark.

David A. Smith